Back

Updated science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators including retraction data

Ioannidis, J.; Pezzullo, A. M.; Cristiano, A.; Boccia, S.; Baas, J.

2024-09-17 scientific communication and education
10.1101/2024.09.16.613258 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Citation metrics are widely used in research appraisal, but they provide incomplete views of scientists impact and research track record. Other indicators of research practices should be linked to citation data. We have updated a Scopus-based database of highly-cited scientists (top-2% in each scientific subfield according to a composite citation indicator) to incorporate retraction data. Using data from the Retraction Watch database (RWDB), retraction records were linked to Scopus citation data. Of 55,237 items in RWDB as of August 15, 2024, we excluded non-retractions, retractions clearly not due to any author error, retractions where the paper had been republished, and items not linkable to Scopus records. Eventually 39,468 eligible retractions were linked to Scopus. Among 217,097 top-cited scientists in career-long impact and 223,152 in single recent year (2023) impact, 7,083 (3.3%) and 8,747 (4.0%), respectively, had at least one retraction. Scientists with retracted publications had younger publication age, higher self-citation rates, and larger publication volume than those without any retracted publications. Retractions were more common in the life sciences and rare or nonexistent in several other disciplines. In several developing countries, very high proportions of top-cited scientists had retractions (highest in Senegal (66.7%), Ecuador (28.6%) and Pakistan (27.8%) in career-long citation impact lists). Variability in retraction rates across fields and countries suggests differences in research practices, scrutiny, and ease of retraction. Addition of retraction data enhances the granularity of top-cited scientists profiles, aiding in responsible research evaluation. However, caution is needed when interpreting retractions, as they do not always signify misconduct; further analysis on a case-by-case basis is essential. The database should hopefully provide a resource for meta-research and deeper insights into scientific practices.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 3%
28.5%
2
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 8%
8.7%
3
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
7.0%
4
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.6%
50% of probability mass above
5
FACETS
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.6%
6
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.0%
7
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.1%
8
FEBS Letters
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
9
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
10
FASEB BioAdvances
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
11
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.9%
12
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.9%
13
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
14
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 32%
1.7%
15
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
16
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
17
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
18
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.1%
19
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
20
Journal of Cellular Physiology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
21
The FEBS Journal
78 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
22
PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET
21 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
23
Acta Crystallographica Section D Structural Biology
54 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
24
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
25
FEBS Open Bio
29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
26
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics
171 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
27
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%